Excerpt from Nancy Pearcey’s new book: “Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself”

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 11, 2015

Culture, Darwinism, Mind

3}_{Categories
Culture
Darwinism
Mind}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

ENV is pleased to share the following excerpt from Nancy Pearcey’s new book,Finding Truth: Five Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism, and Other God Substitutes. A Fellow of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, Pearcey is a professor and scholar-in-residence at Houston Baptist University and editor-at-large of The Pearcey Report. She is author of the 2005 ECPA Gold Medallion Award winner Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity and other books.

A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. “This circle is square” is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself….

An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value.

But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.

Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement?

Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true.

Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie.

Another example comes from Francis Crick. More.

But, of course, no intellectual consideration matters once the naturalists can hear the giant maw of the school system sucking it down. After a while, everyone believes what doesn’t make sense, and no one knows why or cares.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

This post by philosopher Edward Feser will be very helpful to understand the evolutionary argument against naturalism. The comment section is very interesting as well http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/01/schliesser-on-evolutionary-argument.htmlMacauley86_{March 23, 2017
March
03
Mar
23
23
2017
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

The attempt to twist design terminology into the opposite of design collapses of its own weight.kairosfocus_{March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT}

"But, what if that is not the argument?" Then ID fails out of the gate. "Fool." Ad hom, projection.ChristopherH_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

ChristopherH: You do if your argument is that complexity necessitates design. But, what if that is not the argument? Fool.Mung_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

"We do not have to undertake an absurd infinite regress on mechanisms or go in mechanistic circles in order to do so" You do if your argument is that complexity necessitates design. So even if we were to grant your invalid inferences as valid, it solves nothing. >Life is the result of natural design from an agent that does not require design. Special pleading and you're underhandedly admitting that complexity ultimately does not require design. >Life is the result of natural design from an agent that requires design from an agent that requires design from an agent that requires design from an agent that requires design from an agent that requires design from an agent that requires design ad infinitum. Infinite regress, solves nothing as we never arrive an at origin. >Life is the result of supernatural design from an agent that does not require design. Inherently non-science as the supernatural cannot be held to constant certain variables. No matter what, no matter the angle, you lose.ChristopherH_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

VS: This, from 74 above, is a New-Speak classic:
Not unless one tries to sneak in teleology into the word ” directed” , I think Delicate Arch is a non intelligent controlled/ directed configuration.Natural forces cause the pattern of elements , the design. Since ID is agnostic on the mechanism of design,it cannot say where the Fsco/I it detects came from, it may just be in error in its elimination of natural causes as the source, will all due respect.
Delicate Arch and the like natural bridges etc are NOT directed, they are observed to be the products of blind chance and mechanical necessity in concert. They do not exhibit FSCO/I as features of one and the same aspect. Your objection now is trying to force into the word, directed, just what directed does not mean, its opposite. And it does so with a snide accusation that the normal established meaning of directed "sneaks" in purposefulness. Sorry, ah nuh so it go, mon!
Collins Dict: >> intelligence(?n?t?l?d??ns)n 1. (Psychology) the capacity for understanding; ability to perceive and comprehend meaning 2. good mental capacity: a person of intelligence. 3. news; information 4. (Military) military information about enemies, spies, etc 5. (Military) a group or department that gathers or deals with such information 6. (often capital) an intelligent being, esp one that is not embodied 7. (Military) (modifier) of or relating to intelligence: an intelligence network. [C14: from Latin intellegentia, from intellegere to discern, comprehend, literally: choose between, from inter- + legere to choose] >> Collins Eng Dict: >> direct (d??r?kt; da?-) vb (mainly tr) 1. to regulate, conduct, or control the affairs of 2. (also intr) to give commands or orders with authority to (a person or group): he directed them to go away. 3. to tell or show (someone) the way to a place 4. to aim, point, or cause to move towards a goal 5. (Communications & Information) to address (a letter, parcel, etc) 6. to address (remarks, words, etc): to direct comments at someone. 7. (Theatre) (also intr) to provide guidance to (actors, cameramen, etc) in the rehearsal of a play or the filming of a motion picture 8. (Film) (also intr) to provide guidance to (actors, cameramen, etc) in the rehearsal of a play or the filming of a motion picture 9. (Classical Music) (also intr) a. to conduct (a piece of music or musicians), usually while performing oneself b. another word (esp US) for conduct9 . . . . [C14: from Latin d?rectus; from d?rigere to guide, from dis- apart + regere to rule] >>
VS, your quarrel here is with the English language and with high quality dictionaries. Sorry, New-Speak agenda rejected. Back on the design inference on FSCO/I as inductively grounded sign, what is OBSERVED is FSCO/I. OBSERVED, per Wicken wiring diagram functional, information-rich organisation. As in:
‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [[originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65. (Emphases and notes added. Nb: “originally” is added to highlight that for self-replicating systems, the blue print can be built-in.)]
What is further massively observed is that objects, events, systems, processes etc are often causally shaped by distinct causal factors. For instance, aspects may represent:
a: blind chance [--> a die tumbles and settles to a value, sky noise id detected on a radio, flicker and Johnson noise are observed in an electronic circuit . . . which points to various ways chance behaviour arises . . . ], and/or b: mechanical necessity [the die, dropped under gravity undergoes 9.8 N/kg initial acceleration per F = m*a] and/or c: intelligently directed configuration aka design [a die can be volitionally set to a reading by hand or it can be artfully loaded].
This, we separately and directly experience and observe. In a context where we have no reason to hold or conclude that we exhaust the set of possible intelligences with power to contrive objects etc. If you would dismiss this basic reality, the very act of composing an objection is an instance of design of an entity exhibiting FSCO/I. Further to all this, you are back at undermining the logic of science, viz induction, by way of straining to find a rhetorical dismissal for inferring design on empirically observed and tested reliable signs such as FSCO/I. What is observed is FSCO/I expressed in an object etc. Start with text of posts -- including your own -- in this thread. Separately, design and its effects are experienced and observed. Including, on a trillion case basis, FSCO/I. (Start with, the Internet full of web pages etc. Move on to 5,000 years of recorded history and technology. Think about nuts, bolts, gears, pencils, pages of text, bricks and more.) It turns out there is just one empirically verified adequate cause of FSCO/I. And no, we do not have to reduce the observation or experience of design to a blindly mechanical computation connected to a set of actuators in order to properly infer design. That is a back-door smuggling in of a self-refuting agenda of reduction of mind to blind mechanism. Haldane, long ago aptly rebuked and refuted all such:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
Instead, we are fully entitled to accept the reality of designs and designers as empirically well grounded first plausible facts. We do not have to undertake an absurd infinite regress on mechanisms or go in mechanistic circles in order to do so. We start from our well grounded ability to function as cognitive agents in a common world in which we have common experiences of designing and of designed objects etc with associated characteristics. On well substantiated induction, we are then entitled to infer on cases of observed FSCO/I that their best current (and given the needle in haystack search challenge, prospective) explanation is similar to that trillion item knowledge base -- intelligently directed configuration, aka design. Not, by somehow sneaking in design into our thought question-beggingly or similarly demanding reduction of everything to a mindless and blind mechanistic process predetermined as required foundation, but based on well founded direct inductive reasoning. Where, it can be readily shown that just 1,000 bits of FSCO/I comes from a config space from 000 . . . 0 to 111 . . . 1 that involves 1.07*10^301 possibilities. Where also, we see that a blindly mechanistic needle in haystack, chance and necessity search on the gamut of our observed cosmos (~10^80 atoms, 10^17 s, 10^14 attempts to examine and assess configs per atom per s) will be drastically overwhelmed by the scope to be searched. That is, turning the number of atom level, fast chem rxn rate observations (10^111) into a metaphorical straw, the scope to be searched would be a cubical haystack so large that it would dwarf the observed cosmos within as a comparatively tiny blob. Blind needle in haystack search is not an analytically plausible source of FSCO/I. Intelligent agents routinely produce it -- including text of comments here at UD meant to object to, dismiss or deride it -- and demonstrate that intelligently directed creative configuration is sharply distinct from what blind chance and mechanical necessity may reasonably do. This is often in turn dismissed as appeal to "big numbers." Sorry, the search challenge is a real issue that must be faced. Dodgy rhetoric is not good enough. And so, intelligently directed configuration is not question-begging but an inductive inference to well founded explanation. On pain of trying to burn down inductive reasoning. KFkairosfocus_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT}

as to: "I suppose people who love bacon have well-developed receptors enabling them to appreciate its taste." but what if two different people with well developed receptors hate and love bacon? Why the difference between their opinions? Could there be a subjective person inside each of them that is not reducible to chemistry making the judgment as to whether they love or hate bacon or is it all merely 'just chemistry and physics'? :) You really need to watch this video to get a small clue as to how absurd your position actually is: John Cleese – The Scientists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXobornagain77_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

BA, So people who do not ‘love bacon’ do not have those particular genes/proteins??? Yes BA , they are not people they are robotsvelikovskys_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Piotr I suppose GRM1 and GRM4, as well as TAS1R1 and TAS1R3 play a role. The first two encode for metabotropic glutamate receptor proteins, and the next two for taste receptors type 1 (sweetness). Together, they are responsible for recognising “meaty” (umami) tastes. Thanks, how about the salty?velikovskys_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

KF KF [cf 50 supra]: when the investigations tell us (a) that FSCO/I is a strong sign of design as cause VS: You forget I think that a non intelligent directed cofigurations are also a form of design. This seems a rather new-speak-esque conflation and — with all due respect — confusion of incongrous concepts. Not unless one tries to sneak in teleology into the word " directed" , I think Delicate Arch is a non intelligent controlled/ directed configuration.Natural forces cause the pattern of elements , the design. Since ID is agnostic on the mechanism of design,it cannot say where the Fsco/I it detects came from, it may just be in error in its elimination of natural causes as the source, will all due respect.velikovskys_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

If living organisms are not intelligently designed then what are the alternatives and how can they be tested? Please be specificJoe_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

So people who do not ‘love bacon’ do not have those particular genes/proteins???
Maybe you could read what I said with a little more care. I said the genes in question "play a role", not that any sort of agency can be ascribed to them. I suppose people who love bacon have well-developed receptors enabling them to appreciate its taste.Piotr_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Piotr, perhaps this following humorous video can help you see the patent absurdity of your genetic reductionism position: John Cleese - The Scientists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXobornagain77_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

Piotr, so GRM1 and GRM4, as well as TAS1R1 and TAS1R3 'love' meaty tastes? So people who do not 'love bacon' do not have those particular genes/proteins??? Piotr, please try answering the question "What is the gene for 'loving' bacon?" without attributing properties of agency to the genes themselves will you? ,,,as Stephen Talbott has clearly pointed out, a major problem with Darwinian explanations is how to describe the complexities of life without illegitimately using terminology that invokes agency,,,
The 'Mental Cell': Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! - Stephen L. Talbott - September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm
This working biologist agrees completely with Talbott:
Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails - Ann Gauger - June 2011 Excerpt: I'm a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology--we simply cannot avoid them. Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn't troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it's high time we moved on. - Matthew http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161
bornagain77_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

What is the gene for loving bacon?
I suppose GRM1 and GRM4, as well as TAS1R1 and TAS1R3 play a role. The first two encode for metabotropic glutamate receptor proteins, and the next two for taste receptors type 1 (sweetness). Together, they are responsible for recognising "meaty" (umami) tastes.Piotr_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

PPS: Start in a Darwin's pond or the like and show ingredients coming together by blind chance and equally blind lawlike mechanical necessity -- "mechanism" is another pretzel-twist rhetorical game -- yielding a walk across possible configs and arrangements of atoms and molecules, then tell me that a blind search in config space approach is wrong. Similarly, ponder the realities of specific function emerging from correct parts correctly arranged and coupled per a nodes-arcs pattern and complex enough to require 500 - 1,000+ bits of structured description on y/n q's, then tell me that islands of function in large config spaces is wrong. Next, explain to us how blind trial and error through blind walks in such spaces will credibly per observational warrant not ideologically loaded just so stories, get us to such islands with reasonable plausibility. Then, you tell me why understanding search via blind walk on sampling blindly from the power set of such a config space is wrong. Until then, I suggest to you that De Nile is a river in Egypt.kairosfocus_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

VS: This caught my eye, per how one slice of a cake has in it all the key ingredients:
KF [cf 50 supra]: when the investigations tell us (a) that FSCO/I is a strong sign of design as cause VS: You forget I think that a non intelligent directed cofigurations are also a form of design.
This seems a rather new-speak-esque conflation and -- with all due respect -- confusion of incongrous concepts. I am very aware that evolutionary materialists often use "design" to denote functional configs, meaning how wonderful is their favourite all-answering plot device of blind chance non-foresighted variation and differential reproductive success based culling to answer to body plans. The truth is, such has simply not passed the observed causal adequacy test, the vera causa principle; particularly where FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits is involved. Purposeful, intelligently directed configuration issuing in contrivance, is a well known readily observed cause of FSCO/I. The only one we know after thousands of years of observation amounting to trillions of cases. A strong basis for confident induction. But, the root issue is deeper. On a priori evolutionary materialism, self aware consciousness and freely chosen purpose are regarded as in effect illusions, epiphenomena and folk psychology etc concepts along for the ride on the "real" world of CNS wiring and electrochemistry. As Crick et al have plainly said. This tends to empty the real force of terms, just as Orwell's New-Speak so powerfully satirised and exposed. But, those of us who have had to wrestle with the hard business of significant real world technical system design (and then onwards with the issue of how one shapes future designers through pivotal strategic education of the upcoming generation of engineers) have a very different view of design. We actually have to get things to work, and get effective socio-technical systems to work through effective engineering education. (BTW, after much struggle through the minefield of such edu systems design, signs are, the design framework 10++ years on, had good bones.) I find that the lead-in to Wiki's article on design captures a description that rings true:
Design is the creation of a plan or convention for the construction of an object or a system (as in architectural blueprints, engineering drawings, business processes, circuit diagrams and sewing patterns).[1] Design has different connotations in different fields (see design disciplines below). In some cases the direct construction of an object (as in pottery, engineering, management, cowboy coding and graphic design) is also considered to be design. More formally design has been defined as follows.
(noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints; (verb, transitive) to create a design, in an environment (where the designer operates)[2]
Another definition for design is a roadmap or a strategic approach for someone to achieve a unique expectation. It defines the specifications, plans, parameters, costs, activities, processes and how and what to do within legal, political, social, environmental, safety and economic constraints in achieving that objective.[3] Here, a "specification" can be manifested as either a plan or a finished product, and "primitives" are the elements from which the design object is composed. With such a broad denotation, there is no universal language or unifying institution for designers of all disciplines. This allows for many differing philosophies and approaches toward the subject (see Philosophies and studies of design, below). The person designing is called a designer, which is also a term used for people who work professionally in one of the various design areas, usually also specifying which area is being dealt with (such as a fashion designer, concept designer or web designer). A designer's sequence of activities is called a design process. The scientific study of design is called design science.[4][5][6][7] Designing often necessitates considering the aesthetic, functional, economic and sociopolitical dimensions of both the design object and design process. It may involve considerable research, thought, modeling, interactive adjustment, and re-design. Meanwhile, diverse kinds of objects may be designed, including clothing, graphical user interfaces, skyscrapers, corporate identities, business processes and even methods of designing.
Notice, the way "specification" is used, BTW, as there have been attempts to twist that term into rhetorical pretzels. Design lives in the world we actually experience, of responsible, choosing, purposing, contriving agency. Intelligently directed configuration. This is the very opposite of configurations resulting from blind walks across configuration spaces driven by blind chance and mechanical necessity. The distinction should be respected, and if design can be shown to be a delusion then let that be so and let the word go out of usage. But, I doubt that that will ever happen as long as people have to actually design things that must work in the real world. Trying to rewrite what design properly denotes to enfold precisely what is its antithesis, is in my considered view a gross confusion of important language that does not contribute to serious discussion. KF PS: There is no one size fits all sci method that delimits science as an epistemically privileged praxis. Never mind the usual summary taught in primary school these days. Scientism fails. Inductive, careful and appropriate methods of investigation as well as more analytical and abstract logic and math, or philosophical comparative difficulties, or balancing pros and cons or evaluating testimony or record etc etc all should be respected.kairosfocus_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT}

Zach: They’re born that way. Turns out that some people have a gene (TAS2R38) that makes them dislike brussel sprouts What is the gene for loving bacon? TJguy but when dealing with evolution, cosmology, paleontology, parts of geography, etc., the scientific method is of little help. Which parts of geography? Are some parts of geography controversial?velikovskys_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT}

KF: VS (attn CH): Science works by induction. Either you have a problem with science or you have a problem with selective hyperskepticism, No problem with induction but also understand its limitations. I have been a bit sick lately but I don't think it was hyperskepticism. when the investigations tell us (a) that FSCO/I is a strong sign of design as cause You forget I think that a non intelligent directed cofigurations are also a form of design. (b) that cell based life is full of FSCO/I; leading per inference to best explanation, to the reasonable inference that (c) credibly, cell based life is designed. What are then other explanations that were less best? Who impartially judged it best? Perhaps you are suffering from selective hyposkepticism PS: If you wish to break that inference, simply sho us observed cases of FSCO/I coming about per observation, by blind chance and mechanical necessity. Maybe simpler characterized as " by chance and mechanism " Life is the observed case, that is the point of providing some kind of mechanism, it provides support to the hypothesis, It seems to me that a hypothesis that requires a designer should be able to provide the odds that a capable designer exists before it is judged as best explanation,for instance. Greater or less than chance and mechanism? It becomes hard to escape the conclusion that the rhetorical gymnastics we are seeing these days is precisely because after many failed attempts it is clear that this has not been shown. I thought it was a well reasoned ,insightful argument which mostly you just ignored. Funny how unreliable the brain is. FSCO/I is currently best explained by design and given the blind needle in haystack search challenge, this is unlikely to change. I am no expert but perhaps the model of " search " is inaccurate, therefore your odds are inaccurate as well.velikovskys_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

tjguy: Well, that is true of you just as much as it is true of me. You act as if only religious nuts are subject to the influence of culture. Where did you get that idea? tjguy: The reason is that our beliefs about God come first and primarily, from the Bible, not from culture. At least that is the goal we shoot for. The Bible is a cultural artifact. Using the Bible as a primary source on Christian spiritual matters is the result of changes in technology (printing press) and the Protestant Reformation. tjguy: The scientific method does help a great deal, but when dealing with evolution, cosmology, paleontology, parts of geography, etc., the scientific method is of little help. Did you know that some species of dinosaur nested in colonies like terns? That they fed their young in the nest? Science is amazing! tjguy: That much is absolutely clear and undeniable. But there is no date stamped on the fossil or tag that tells us where this animal lived. Fossils can be dated relatively, by their stratigraphic position; or absolutely, through radiometrics. tjguy: The difference comes in the interpretation of the data. In science, it's not interpretation, but hypothetical entailments that are determinative. tjguy: Except that it undermines everything we claim to “know”. The Relativity of Wrong http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm tjguy: I agree that we can learn some things about the past, but we cannot learn near as much as we can about the present. Some scientific findings about the past are very well-established. Some scientific findings about the present are not well-known at all. tjguy: Trying to fit the pieces together is fine, but turning these stories/hypotheses into truth claims/scientific fact is totally invalid. Yet dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. tjguy: Of course they do, but the question is “why do they do this?” They're born that way. Turns out that some people have a gene (TAS2R38) that makes them dislike brussel sprouts.Zachriel_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

Zachriel @59
tjguy: But using my evolved mind to evaluate the data leads me to conclude something totally different – namely that belief in God is the most reasonable explanation for life, mind, beauty, design, and the universe itself.
Your views of God are probably highly tempered by your cultural experience.
Well, that is true of you just as much as it is true of me. You act as if only religious nuts are subject to the influence of culture. You cannot exempt yourself from that because you too are a member of the human race and all of our beliefs are informed by our experiences and our culture to some extent, so I’m not sure what your point is. As a Christian, my views of God are informed first and foremost by the Bible itself, but yes, I’m sure there is a cultural aspect of it. I normally live in Japan, but was brought up in the US. My Christian culture and practices are definitely informed by my upbringing and cultural experiences, but Christians in Japan view God in much the same way as Christians in the US. The reason is that our beliefs about God come first and primarily, from the Bible, not from culture. At least that is the goal we shoot for.
tjguy: Again, the bottom line is, how do we know which evolved monkey brain is trustworthy – if any!
The human mind is not completely trustworthy, however, the scientific method has allowed humans to bootstrap their collective knowledge.
The scientific method does help a great deal, but when dealing with evolution, cosmology, paleontology, parts of geography, etc., the scientific method is of little help. But even with the scientific method, we have to take certain things for granted – make certain unprovable assumptions, as I’m sure you are aware of from your knowledge of the philosophy of science. At the very foundation of science are assumptions that we must make about the world. Here is where the Judeo Christian worldview comes into play and provides science with a rationale and a solid foundation. This is what materialism is not able to do.
tjguy: We just don’t have all the information we need to make accurate conclusions about the past.
In many cases, there is ample information. For instance, it’s fairly certain that mega-dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.
Yes, fossils can tell us that these animals actually existed in the past. It might even tell us what it ate – if the stomach contents are fossilized. That much is absolutely clear and undeniable. But there is no date stamped on the fossil or tag that tells us where this animal lived. The animal could have died somewhere else and been washed there by water or a flood. Creationists, IDers, and Materialists all have the same fossils. The difference comes in the interpretation of the data. Materialists plug the data into an evolutionary scenario while creationists plug it into the creationist paradigm. Here, both sides make some assumptions.
tjguy: How often do we find things that overturn previously held beliefs concerning the past. This happens all the time in evolution and the historical sciences especially.
That’s a feature, not a bug.
Except that it undermines everything we claim to “know”. tjguy: Are you thinking of the fact that most people believe in a Creator when you say that? As already noted, people map complex phenomena to complex personalities in order to better understand them. Generally, science discounts these mappings and replaces them with testable theories.
tjguy: Philosophy is not enough, but neither is science enough – especially when we delve into the unreachable, unrepeatable, untestable, and only semi-observable past.
It’s invalid to exclude scientific study of the past. There are many strongly supported scientific findings about the past.
I agree that we can learn some things about the past, but we cannot learn near as much as we can about the present. Even when we piece all the data together and try and make sense of it, we do not necessarily have all the information necessary to do it accurately. And we really have no way of knowing if our “story” is accurate or not because it is outside the reach of the scientific method. The problem we have with historical science is that so often things are presented as if they are just as tried and sure as regular science. The word “science” gives our hypotheses about the past too much credibility. We have people who make bold statements like “Evolution is a fact.” This is a reference to not simply change over time, but to common descent and molecules to man type of random change due only to natural processes and totally void of intelligence. So we do not exclude all study and conclusions about the past, but limit what we can really know. Trying to fit the pieces together is fine, but turning these stories/hypotheses into truth claims/scientific fact is totally invalid.
tjguy: The question brings up a deeper quandary: how could Darwin-soaked western intellectuals respond with moral outrage?
It’s not much of a quandary. Human experience moral outrage, just like they may love their kids, or hate brussel sprouts. It’s part of their human natures.
Of course they do, but the question is “why do they do this?” The point I was trying to make was that again, the Judeo Christian worldview provides a rational explanation for why people justifiably feel a moral outrage when seeing their evil actions. I think that deep down, we all know or at least feel that the antics of ISIS are 100% wrong no matter what culture, what worldview, or what country we live in. We all know it, but Darwinists have to say that it is not wrong in an absolute sense – only wrong in our culture – and even then only wrong in the sense that most people don’t like it – not wrong in the sense that it breaks some absolute moral code. Morality evolves and is relative. There can be no true right and wrong in Materialism, only what is right and wrong as compared to the current in vogue arbitrary human standards. .Materialism cannot provide any firm moral standard on which to make that judgment. Why is it moral outrage part of human nature? That is the question! Christianity gives us a better explanation/answer for that than Materialism. Materialism simply says that it developed through evolution, but that there is no absolute moral code. Besides, according to Materialism, ISIS is simply an illustration of evolution in action. Evolution is neither right nor wrong. It just is. It just happens. Humans are part of evolution as are their actions, thoughts, and motives. So how can Materialists claim that what they are doing is wrong and get outraged at the evil and injustice? Illegal? Yes, but it is not illegal in their society! Do you want to impose our cultural values on them? Why? Why do you feel your moral standards are any more valid than their moral standards? Who gives you the right to judge and condemn them? It seems a bit arrogant to me to think our cultural ideas are any more valid than another culture's standards - UNLESS - there truly is an absolute moral standard that they have broken. Again, imo, Christianity seems to have the more rational and satisfying answer for this problem. [There I go again thinking that my thoughts actually have value and can be trusted! Shame on me!! How am I ever going to learn?!!]tjguy_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

tjguy: How can we test the Big Bang? The classic test was the discovery of the cosmic background radiation. It was predicted in 1948 by Alpher and Herman, and first detected in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson. Penzias and Wilson were later awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery.Zachriel_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Velikovskys @56
The Bible says that God created us for relationship with Him. If we humans all have a desire to know where we came from, why we are here, where we are going, etc., if the Designer made us with those desires, unless He is a capricious meanie, it makes total sense that He would reveal these answers to us.
I disagree, I think it is the journey not the destination which provides the answers.
Disagreement is certainly permissible. Just explaining what the Bible teaches and the Judeo Christian worldview posits.
Reason, truth, morality, beauty, love, etc. These things make total sense within the Judeo Christian worldview, but they don’t make sense in the Materialist worldview.
Those of course are not the only two choices.
If you are aware of another worldview that can explain these things consistently and make sense out of them, I’d love to hear it. Perhaps you could say the Islamic worldview and Judaic worldview also do since they all accept the origin story of the Bible. Maybe you would prefer the Islamic worldview to the Judeo Christian worldview?
You are free to believe in evolved monkey brains that make humans biological pawns of the chemical processes in those brains if you want, but for me, the God hypothesis is a far better explanation of reality.
It is a far more comforting one, better who knows?
So, tell me, if we don’t know which worldview is better, why would I want to choose a less comforting worldview to believe in? Let’s assume for a minute that Materialism is correct. If so, we are nothing more than machines run by chemicals deluded by thoughts of personhood, the existence of self, and morality. Materialism provides little comfort for it’s followers as you admitted. If I return to dust when I die, why does it matter what worldview I choose? Really? If there is no direction or purpose for evolution, why does it matter what worldview I choose? Whatever I choose, it simply becomes part of the whole evolutionary process. So, as far as I can tell, it makes no difference what I do, how I live, or what I believe in the grand scheme of things. Whether I believe in Allah, God, or atheism makes no difference in the end. If so, why would I want to choose atheism when I can find so much more meaning, purpose, love, beauty, consistency, etc. in the Judeo Christian worldview? I can understand why some would prefer there not to be a God as it gives us total freedom to live our lives however we want, but it removes purpose and meaning in life. That is too big of a trade off for me. Of course, I do not choose my worldview simply because of utilitarian reasons like this. I choose it because I actually believe it is true, but even if I didn’t, why would I want to choose atheism/materialism?
You’ll have to forgive me. Evolution made my brain. I have no idea whether my thoughts are accurate or not,
That is why you test those ideas and learn, even monkeys do that. Perhaps in order to have free will uncertainty must exist, surely God is capable of removing all doubt about His existence if He chose. Why doesn’t He?
In theory, that sounds really nice. Test our ideas. How can we test the Big Bang? How can we test abiogenesis? How can we test the creative power of natural processes? Can we push a replay button and watch everything evolve from a single cell to a human all over? Why doesn’t God remove all doubt of His existence? Good question. He says there is enough evidence of His existence that can be seen in nature that we have no excuse for not believing in His existence. The Bible does speak of the importance of faith. Salvation is by faith. That doesn’t mean blind faith, but yes, faith is necessary. He prefers us to choose to believe in Him, love Him, and follow Him rather than to have people be forced to admit He exists. If you could understand everything about God, you would be greater than He is. There is an element of trust in God and who He is, even if we cannot understand it now or don’t have all the answers now.
but I have no choice but to see things as I do. Right now, due to the evolved monkey brain that evolution blessed me with, that is what I think. It is how I evaluate the matter. It makes me happy and fulfilled and seems accurate to me, so I’m gonna stick with it!
That is reasonable as long as you afford others the same choice.
Of course, we afford others the same choice. It doesn’t mean we give up sharing our beliefs with others, but belief and worldview choices are something that each individual must decide on themselves. We believe people are capable of making these choices and are therefore responsible for the choices we make. Blessings!tjguy_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

F/N: Onlookers, cf here on why I so confidently say that: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations/functionally-specific-complex-organisation-and-associated-information-fscoi-is-real-and-relevant/ KFkairosfocus_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

tjguy: But using my evolved mind to evaluate the data leads me to conclude something totally different – namely that belief in God is the most reasonable explanation for life, mind, beauty, design, and the universe itself. Your views of God are probably highly tempered by your cultural experience. tjguy: Again, the bottom line is, how do we know which evolved monkey brain is trustworthy – if any! The human mind is not completely trustworthy, however, the scientific method has allowed humans to bootstrap their collective knowledge. tjguy: We just don’t have all the information we need to make accurate conclusions about the past. In many cases, there is ample information. For instance, it's fairly certain that mega-dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. tjguy: How often do we find things that overturn previously held beliefs concerning the past. This happens all the time in evolution and the historical sciences especially. That's a feature, not a bug. tjguy: Are you thinking of the fact that most people believe in a Creator when you say that? As already noted, people map complex phenomena to complex personalities in order to better understand them. Generally, science discounts these mappings and replaces them with testable theories. tjguy: Are there other ways to know things than the scientific method? Of course there are. However, in light of this blog, ID makes a false claim to *scientific* validity. tjguy: Philosophy is not enough, but neither is science enough – especially when we delve into the unreachable, unrepeatable, untestable, and only semi-observable past. It's invalid to exclude scientific study of the past. There are many strongly supported scientific findings about the past. tjguy: Another great example of scientists making truth claims and being deceived because of lack of information is this on the national geographic website: “Astronomers Find a Dusty Galaxy That Shouldn’t Exist” An object from the very early universe is bafflingly rich with dust that theory says shouldn’t have formed yet. Yet, there are such things as galaxies containing billions of stars, like the sun. The Relativity of Wrong http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm tjguy: The question brings up a deeper quandary: how could Darwin-soaked western intellectuals respond with moral outrage? It's not much of a quandary. Human experience moral outrage, just like they may love their kids, or hate brussel sprouts. It's part of their human natures.Zachriel_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

VS (attn CH): Science works by induction. Either you have a problem with science or you have a problem with selective hyperskepticism, when the investigations tell us (a) that FSCO/I is a strong sign of design as cause and (b) that cell based life is full of FSCO/I; leading per inference to best explanation, to the reasonable inference that (c) credibly, cell based life is designed. Probably, the latter. KF PS: If you wish to break that inference, simply sho us observed cases of FSCO/I coming about per observation, by blind chance and mechanical necessity. It becomes hard to escape the conclusion that the rhetorical gymnastics we are seeing these days is precisely because after many failed attempts it is clear that this has not been shown. FSCO/I is currently best explained by design and given the blind needle in haystack search challenge, this is unlikely to change.kairosfocus_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

Ch: KF, yet again you confuse asserting life being designed for life actually being designed. You have to admit, it cuts out all the fuss and muss.velikovskys_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

tjguy: It makes much more sense of reality to me. A Materialist has no foundation for reason whatsoever, but the Judeo Christian worldview does provide that foundation. To me, it is a better and more fulfilling and meaningful explanation of reality. Reason is derived,my point. The Bible reveals, as does nature, a God of order, design, and beauty(there are, of course, many exceptions due to human sin and the curse that sin incurred on humanity and on God’s creation.) Not the best design ,imo The Bible says that God created us for relationship with Him. If we humans all have a desire to know where we came from, why we are here, where we are going, etc., if the Designer made us with those desires, unless He is a capricious meanie, it makes total sense that He would reveal these answers to us. I disagree, I think it is the journey not the destination which provides the answers. Reason, truth, morality, beauty, love, etc. These things make total sense within the Judeo Christian worldview, but they don’t make sense in the Materialist worldview. Those of course are not the only two choices. You are free to believe in evolved monkey brains that make humans biological pawns of the chemical processes in those brains if you want, but for me, the God hypothesis is a far better explanation of reality. It is a far more comforting one, better who knows? You’ll have to forgive me. Evolution made my brain. I have no idea whether my thoughts are accurate or not, That is why you test those ideas and learn, even monkeys do that. Perhaps in order to have free will uncertainty must exist, surely God is capable of removing all doubt about His existence if He chose. Why doesn't He? but I have no choice but to see things as I do. Right now, due to the evolved monkey brain that evolution blessed me with, that is what I think. It is how I evaluate the matter. It makes me happy and fulfilled and seems accurate to me, so I’m gonna stick with it! That is reasonable as long as you afford others the same choice. And personally, I’m happy that I was blessed with a religious brain, as you are probably happy that you were not. Same brain, different solutions to the same problem. Glad you are happy that would be a good indicator of a successful philosophy.velikovskys_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

KF, yet again you confuse asserting life being designed for life actually being designed.CHartsil_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT}

F/N: read 21 here by the much "misunderestimated" BA77. KFkairosfocus_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply